From: Mat Marcus (mat-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-25 15:52:57
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Roland Schwarz
> James Talbut wrote:
> > Hi,
> > There have been various discussions on here about the problems caused by
> > _SECURE_SCL, but I haven't seen any concrete plans for changes to boost
> > build to handle it.
> > At a minimum the build system should be changed to enable those users
> > wanting _SECURE_SCL=0 to do so easily - ideally by providing an argument
> > to bjam.
> > Is someone working on this?
> How about putting:
> Into the requirements section of your project?
Those are about whether the compiler should emit warnings when using
std STL constructs that MS deems unsafe. They have nothing to do with
the performance penalty alleviated by setting _SECURE_SCL=0. The
problem is that we, I believe unintentionally, ship a build system
that penalizes release builds by default.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk